EMT course would help high school students
To the Editor:
After reading Mr. Bumgarner's letter to the editor Sept. 4 regarding
school problems, I will have to disagree with the statement about the
emergency medical technician course being taught in high school. If
emergency medical technician was taught in the high school, students
would have an opportunity to concentrate on a broader perspective of
career opportunities within the health care field.
During an emergency medical technician course, students learn how to
assess, treat and deal with special situations, including medical, legal
and ethical issues. Students study the human body, learn to take baseline
vital signs and patient history, learn techniques for lifting and moving
patients, airway anatomy and management, patient assessment, communications
and documentation, pharmacology, cardiovascular and neurologic emergencies,
substance abuse, poisoning, and environmental emergencies.
The course also includes behavioral topics, obstetrics and gynecological
emergencies, kinematics of trauma, musculoskeletal care, assessment
of pediatric and geriatric patients, as well as special operations that
cover incident command system, identifying hazardous materials, mass
casualty incidents and disaster management.
As you see there are a lot of ways an emergency medical technician course
could assist students with career opportunities within the health care
profession. It will also assist students in other career fields, including
teaching, law enforcement, firefighting, emergency management, disaster
planning, military service, 911 communication dispatchers, and the list
goes on.
As a paramedic, volunteer firefighter and a parent of a high school
student, I believe that the emergency medical technician course would
help a student evaluate many career opportunities.
Toby Moore
Sylva
|
Characterization of Ropers was out of line
To the Editor:
I would like to respond to the letter from Mr. Bumgarner, regarding
James Roper and his family. Fannie Roper was employed some 30 years
ago with the board of education, long before James Roper was involved
with the school board. She then left to work as the secretary for one
of our previous commissioners.
Fannie then went back to the board of education, again, long before
James Roper was elected as a representative. She will have given more
than 30 years of service to Jackson County when she retires. Those facts
should have also been verified by Mr. Bumgarner.
As for Jimmy Roper, any athlete will tell you they would be proud to
have Jimmy as a coach if he desired to take on that position. Jimmy
has spent years of his time coaching and helping with athletes, again
long before his father became involved with the board of education.
Jimmy, himself was an athlete at Sylva-Webster High School, as Mr. Bumgarner
should know by this point, as I understand he is also a graduate of
SWHS.
As for Sherri Roper and her position with the board of education, if
Mr. Bumgarner had done his research he would have found that Sherri
does not have a college degree; however, she does have experience and
work ethics, and she does have the equivalent experience. He would also
find her former employers speak very highly of her. In order for Sherri
to have been placed in the position being questioned, it would have
taken a majority vote of the board of education, not one vote.
Now for James Roper. I have been fortunate to have known him for 46
years, which makes it very difficult to sit back and remain silent when
you hear the things being said by Mr. Bumgarner about him and his family.
We both have the freedom to give our opinions and have them published.
However, I am the more fortunate of the two of us as I am James Roper's
niece and I know his true character.
James Roper is one of the finest men I have the privilege of knowing
and loving for 46 years. It is a shame that he is being singled out
due to the position that he is in. However due to his character, I have
no doubt he will still do what is best for the students and faculty
of Jackson County, no matter how much controversy he seems to be getting.
I doubt when contacted by Mr. Bumgarner that James Roper felt he could
discuss any of an ongoing investigation. I know as a family member he
certainly did not answer any of my questions about the situation. I
certainly hope the board of education has attorneys to advise them on
what they can and cannot say to the public with any type of action being
investigated. These are legal processes that have to be followed.
Jackson County is fortunate to have such a watch dog as Mr. Bumgarner
if his comments and investigations are without prejudice and not due
to a resentment to a family member that was asked not to continue teaching
at Smoky Mountain High School.
I hope in the future to see Mr. Bumgarner's name on the ballot for a
seat on the Jackson County Board of Education and hope he does not find
himself in the same position that this board has found themselves in,
not due to their actions, but due to the actions of administrators and
teachers of Jackson County.
Jackson County is a wonderful place to live and to be educated, and
it is a shame that the responsible administrators and teachers are having
to live and teach under the cloud of the actions of others. The board
of education and school officials have followed all the guidelines and
the situation is over. Hopefully, the students and teachers who this
is really affecting now can go on to do what they are in school for.
The White House scandal did not go on as long as this seems to be going
on.
Debbie Condon
Buford, Ga.
|
Discussions should remain civil
To the Editor:
After reading numerous letters to the editor in The Sylva Herald over
the last few months, I hope the thoughts of a former longtime resident
and still owner of several Main Street, Sylva, buildings might find
an ear.
As there are in every town, many important issues face Sylva's citizens.
This is not new. Every generation has its share. In most cases, there
are at least two very valid sides to an issue, many times a blended
version of several ideas makes good sense.
When discussions are held in this paper or on the street or in meetings,
it seems to me it would be constructive to discuss them in a civil way.
Character assassination, conjectures of conspiracy and stupidity, and
the likes even when they appear valid usually accomplish little in the
long run.
Even long-term, important decisions by the DOT, school board and governmental
bodies that we judge detriment don't usually cause the doom and gloom
we might let our emotions carry us to. It seems to me that organized,
steady, concise and, above all, civil discourse would accomplish more
and allow a small community to still be able to care for each other's
needs.
Isn't that what it is all about?
David Schulman
Asheville
|
Residents deserve the right to choose
To the Editor:
A woman came into the general store the other day and said she needed
to talk to Doc (Charles Stallings). She's building a million dollar
home in Speedwell and has apparently decided we need zoning to keep
out apartments and other potentially unwanted development.
I might agree that a 500-bed apartment complex is not something I'd
consider ideal for my community, but I wonder about the mentality and
the sheer arrogance of someone who hasn't even lived in the community
yet is suggesting what should or shouldn't go in the community. I wonder
too if this woman might have considered that her million dollar ego
trip might be as threatening to the neighborhood as an apartment complex.
The idea I found most disconcerting was that of zoning something out.
The problem with that concept is two-fold. First of all, it supposes
that if I can zone something out of my community that some other community
is more deserving of the problem. Speedwell shouldn't have it, but does
that mean Wayehutta or Locust Creek are more deserving? And if they
don't want it, can they just push it off on some other community with
less money or political power?
The second problem with this approach is that it fails to address the
real problem. Is it the development of a 500-bed apartment complex or
is it the institutions and factors in the market place that are driving
an unsustainable and damaging rate of growth?
A perfect example of the fallacy of attacking the symptom rather than
the problem is demonstrated by the folks who are fighting the Southern
Loop. I agree that the construction of the road is inappropriate but
to some extent they are fighting the wrong battle.
DOT based its argument for the road on a series of numbers and growth
projections that show a level of growth over the next 20 or 30 years
that might justify such a project. It's fine to fight the road, but
the problem is that if no one challenges the growth assumptions behind
the road, then we may very well actually need the road in the future.
If we blindly accept as inevitable growth projections that allow the
university to grow to 12,000 or 15,000, if we blindly accept growth
envisioned in the business model of some of the developers who view
all open space as buildable space and who believe that the only areas
we must conserve are those we can place behind locked gates and charge
exorbitant prices for access to, and if we continue to build and support
the underlying infrastructure that supports and sustains these projections,
then it is likely our problem won't be whether or not to build a big
road. Our problem won't be where to put all the apartments. No, our
problem might be figuring out where to put the rest of us and figuring
out where our communities and local folks went.
Contrary to what it may sound like, I am not against growth or development.
It's not a matter of being against anything; it's a matter of being
for something and I believe in choice. A community ought to have a choice
in what it will look like, and that choice ought not to come at someone
else's expense. Nor should that choice be dictated by Raleigh or the
institutions or bureaucracies that exist to serve us.
If the community chooses to seek rapid development and to support the
infrastructure that will sustain it, then fine. If the community chooses
to look like Hilton Head or other upscale areas where local populations
and communities have been uprooted and now must make long commutes to
work service jobs, then so be it.
But if the community desires to retain its local character, to support
its traditional mix and seek sustainable growth that allows for affordable
housing and the development of jobs that will allow our children to
stay and make a decent living, then our elected officials ought to step
up and demand responsiveness and accountability from the institutions
and bureaucracies created to serve us and from development interests
that would overwhelm and displace in the furtherance of a bigger bottom
line. Our elected officials, both here and in Raleigh, ought to step
up and find ways to develop programs and policies that will support
the community's vision. Our elected officials ought to step up and articulate
a vision that reflects the will of the community, the whole community,
not just the part with the biggest pocket book.
The other night I went over to my friend's house. He's been sick with
heart trouble and his wife has been gravely ill with cancer so some
friends and neighbors and family gathered together for prayer and fellowship.
I guess there were about 20 or 30 people gathered in that small house
by the branch. We sang some and prayed some. The preacher preached some,
then we shook hands and hugged and cried some.
We told my friends how much we loved them and we told each other the
same thing. And we thanked God for His love and grace and the many blessings
he gives even in hard times and sickness. Afterwards we stood in the
yard and enjoyed the night air and visited as neighbors do.
I guess that was about the biggest time I've ever had, and I think it
must have been about the most perfect example of community I've ever
seen. Community is simple. It isn't programs or regulations. It isn't
buildings or facilities. It's as simple as love of neighbor.
I would hope that in our quest for progress and growth, that in all
our projections and schemes for development, we would remember that
simple definition of community and give folks the chance and the choice
to keep what already may be close to perfect.
Mark Jamison
Cullowhee
|
Where's the need for a subdivision ordinance?
To the Editor:
I am in receipt of a copy of the proposed subdivision regulations that
were recently presented to the county commissioners by the Smart Growth
Task Force. Having followed the formulation of these guidelines, I'm
at a loss to understand why they're necessary. It seems that all of
a sudden county officials have become obsessed with regulation.
We already have subdivision rules, and erosion control and sedimentation
ordinance, state regulations on septic and water systems, a federal
watershed protection law and numerous other laws and regulations we
all must follow. Where is the public outcry for more regulations?
If new subdivision regulations are deemed necessary, they must be reasonable
and designed to overcome some problem we're having. Reading these proposed
regulations, I believe they are unreasonable and unnecessary.
The major problem I see with them is the road construction standards.
Requiring a 20-foot paved road surface for all roads servicing 25 lots
or more makes no sense. Most state roads around here aren't 20-feet
wide. As an example, N.C. 107, one of the major roads in the county,
is only 18-feet paved in many areas.
In addition, the regulations dictate a maximum 2 to 1 slope, 4-foot
shoulders on both sides, 6 inches of compacted stone with 11 1/2 inches
of paving, a maximum of 15 percent slope (12 percent in curves) and
much more.
These requirements make much of the county's land inaccessible, and
places where you could get such a road would be scarred by huge cleared
swaths. Such obsessive clearing will create more run-off, more erosion,
and a loss of the natural setting.
When most people want less clearing and more preservation of the natural
canopy, why would we impose laws to the opposite?
In addition, imposition of these road standards would make any new affordable
housing in Jackson County impossible. Roads built to such standards
are very expensive. Neighborhoods serviced by such roads would be forced
to charge more for lots. Is that what we want - only the rich being
able to live in Jackson County?
I believe that before we go any further with more regulations in Jackson
County, we need to identify the problem the people of Jackson County
are having with the current situation. "If it ain't broke, don't
fix it!"
Ray Trine
Cashiers
Editor's Note: The Jackson County Board of Commissioners adopted
a subdivision ordinance in January 1996 and indefinately postponed its
enforcement six months later.
|
Respect for others
To the Editor:
While reading Teresa Eberly's letter to the editor two weeks ago,
I was struck again by the thought that differing views on American conflict,
whenever and wherever it occurs, by no means reflect different levels
of patriotism.
As Barbara Kingsolver mentioned in one of her essays, how could someone
who rejoices in the "crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to
shining to sea" A merica be considered any less patriotic than
someone who rejoices in the "bombs bursting in air" America?
We are so fortunate to be part of a country with tremendous resources
and the capacity for acts that are generous and noble in nature but
have nothing to do with military might.
In general, I find it unfortunate that many of the letters "to
the editor" and subsequent letters in response end up being a forum
for expressing opposing views in a way that tends to be sarcastic and
condescending, with considerable oversimplification of issues. Is it
not more important to think critically about a variety of perspectives,
take an honest look at as many facts as possible, and come to a conclusion
that can then be discussed intelligently with others instead of shoves
self-righteously at them?
When does respect for others become unimportant?
Sincerely,
Nelia Waldrum
Sylva
|
Back to Archive: 09/25/03.
|
